About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
with our government's top national security priority, which is the lawful effective and humane interrogation of this subject for the purposes of gathering intelligence. the boston attacks were clearly inspired by the violent ideology of transnationallist islamist terrorism. so we need to learn everything we can about what foreign terrorists or terrorist groups the suspect and his brother might have associated with, whether they were part of additional plots to attack our nation, and what other relevant information the suspect may possess that could prevent future attacks against the united states or our interests. i think we need to delve further into this whole issue of the education that some people who are motivated by these base ideologies obtain over the internet and the effect that it's having. we should at least know about that. our civilian justice system offers a responsible option for striking this balance with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety.
and services and law firm income. if you want to encourage small business, we can work together. >> we cannot merthyr posted the code to try and alleviate pressure of taxes, but instead of having loopholes, why don't we have the raise? that way they decide for themselves what to do with capital, how to create jobs. there is where going to have an issue when it comes to tax reform. i don't want it well on this because i'm putting myself on the clock so we can get to everybody else here. has the president made any proposals since he's been president to raise taxes on families earning less than $200,000 for $250,000 for joint filers? >> the pledges prison and a pledge that it will not hit 50 below 250. another's disagreements on categorizing, but i'd be happy to have the conversation. >> i'm just trying to save the supreme court says the mandate is a task that obviously has everybody. including people making less than $250,000. the cigarette tax, smokers don't just make about $250,000. but the new 28% tax rate limitation on deductions kicks in families making $220,000. the point is your already
,ming. mr. presiden this amendment protects the privacy and sety of law-abiding gun owners. when government officials release gun ownership information it puts many lives at risk. this includes the lives of lawful gun owners, the lived of law enforcement and the lives of ctheic violence. state or local governments that release private gun owner information will be penalized 5% of their federal program funding. this includes the release of private information on individuals 0 who have licenses to purchase or who possess or who carry firearms. the funding that's withheld will then be redistributed to the states that are in compliance. this amendment will ensure that gun owners across the nation do not have their private gun owner information publicly released. thank you, mr. president. and i urge all my colleagues to support the amendment. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: this is a case of washington being big brother and telling each one of the states whether it's wyoming, vermont, or connecticut here's what you have to do. we have no idea
in cleveland working for a law firm, and this next call comes from bobby in ohio. >> caller: i've got a question for you in regards to the comment you made about rg 3:and the article about him being called an uncle tom. why would you state that person saying that would be republican? wouldn't democrats actually sometimes have feelings like that? i'm a republican, and i don't feel that way towards rg iii, so i'm just curious why you would say that. >> guest: you either misunderstood what i said, or i said it badly. what i said was the espn guy criticized rg iii because he thought he was republican. he said there's a rumor he's republican, i don't know about that. he's got a white fiancee, i don't know about that. he called him a cornball brother because he suspected that rg iii was a republican, but he had a white fiancee. that is why this caster called him a cornball brother which i think is a racist thing. so i'm sorry if i misexplained it. >> host: go ahead, bobby, you're still on the line. >> caller: i appreciate that. i agree the same way you do then. i think it's totally a racist
both would have to sign before to become law. they would have to agree on executive order, sipri court nominees, decisions as commander-in-chief of the military. each would have their own vice president for a small personal staff but all other appointments the executive branch or the judiciary would be a single joint appointee. with that they could make decisions so much more quickly. you sort of have a democrat nominating a democratic person or republican for republican. you would have a bipartisan nominee and there wouldn't be a confirmation in the position will be filled much more quick way. in all likelihood they would divide up primary responsibilities. one might direct health care and the other education. one might focus on our relations with european countries and the other with asian countries but when it would come time to make decisions they would have to agree. all decisions would have to be shared decisions. joint decision would make it more representative decision-making. instead of having a republican president champing the platform of the republican party or a democratic
of a bank account or something, you know. if you think unilaterally the dictator for a day passed one law, what would you do? that's definitely a major flaw in the republican thinking. they assume we're going to be dictator for one day and limit government by doing that. in fact we're dictators for life and government gets bigger. to get to the spirit of your question, i think if we could reverse or somewhat change the relationship between the federal government and the states, i think that is the most lasting thing to serve to limit government. the vision of competing multiple jurisdiction of preventing consolidation of power is valid and valid in this century as well. the senates go hat and hand in washington asking for federal money. >> hi, spencer with the "daily caller" you reference the mythical permanent majority of the republican party. of course they disappeared. now we see a vision the establishment fading way. tea party segment is rising. do you think that is a permanent influence on the modern republican party now? if so give that is a grassroots movement is there anything you
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6